If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Spielberg also shot an accompanying nonfiction documentary, "Double Victory," that in the US will be shown on the History Channel. Here in the East, it's on I believe on 1/12 at 8 p.m. Eastern time and again on 1/14 at 4 p.m., and I'm sure it will be repeated a number of times thereafter. "Double Victory" refers to their victory against the Luftwaffe as well as against racism.

As a member of the Maj. Gen. Irene Trowell-Harris Chapter (Newburgh, NY) of the Tuskegee Airmen, I look forward to the film even though it frankly is going to be Star Wars with P-51s rather than X-Fighters. Oh, well, we'll take what we can get...

Hope the new Dambusters film is better than this. Sorry but the CGI just does'nt look real.
People slag off the Memphis belle remake , but at least a lot of the flying looked right ......because it had real aeroplanes.
Perhaps it'll look better on the big screen.

Hope the new Dambusters film is better than this. Sorry but the CGI just does'nt look real.
People slag off the Memphis belle remake , but at least a lot of the flying looked right ......because it had real aeroplanes.
Perhaps it'll look better on the big screen.

Best CGI on the market. Still not 100%, but watchable? Of course. Without CGI, a movie like this can't be made any more.

I support their efforts and I support CGI because WHEN it gets 100% and not 95%, doors can be opened to places where no one has ever been able to go before in historic aviation. The options are endless. With a little luck, and if these films will be made, it can generate thousands of new fans of historic aviation. That means thousands of new airshow goers, perhaps even a handfull of stinky rich investors in 10-15 years ready to splash out on that Hawker Tempest restoration because they maybe, just maybe saw a movie like this and got hooked. I saw Memphis Belle when I was 10 and I got hooked. So will others, and with todays possibilities, the sky is the limit. Pun intended.

Last edited by DCK; 11th January 2012 at 21:47.

Author explaining the state of historic aviation;

"[...] I don't get any fangirls, just old guys trying to tell me stuff I already know."

I'm curious as to why you think that. There are more WWII-era aircraft available now than at any time since the 1950s, camera technology has improved significantly, the skills in terms of piloting and filming still exist as they always have. So why would something that was once possible now no longer be so?

It needs to be remembered that George Lucas, the director, has said time and again that the intended audience for this film is "teenage boys"--particularly African-American boys, for whom he has tried to make a film that will give them a few badly needed heros. He straight-out says the film is corny and is little more than an updated "Flying Leathernecks." He jokes that it's actually Episode Seven of the "Star Wars" series.

So the gripes of 65-year-old rivet-counters, aging aviation historians (me), and guardians of Aviation Truth are utterly irrelevant to him, and I think that's just fine. (And as I said above, I'm even a card-carrying member of the Tuskegee Airmen association.)

There was absolutely no need for him to use real aircraft, any more than he needed real spaceships for "Star Wars" or a real Luftwaffe airplane for the Indiana Jones film. It's a film for teenagers, guys!

I'm curious as to why you think that. There are more WWII-era aircraft available now than at any time since the 1950s, camera technology has improved significantly, the skills in terms of piloting and filming still exist as they always have. So why would something that was once possible now no longer be so?

Cost vs interest in historic aviation.

The skills are there, the planes are there, but no way any major film maker want to invest the kind of money needed to fly them for a movie. Maybe I'm wrong, but the world isn't flooding with Battle of Britain movies...

Author explaining the state of historic aviation;

"[...] I don't get any fangirls, just old guys trying to tell me stuff I already know."

The skills are there, the planes are there, but no way any major film maker want to invest the kind of money needed to fly them for a movie. Maybe I'm wrong, but the world isn't flooding with Battle of Britain movies...

Well, there's a major movie in the offing that will have significant historic aircraft content, if it comes to fruition. And I'd not expect to have much CGI either. So we'll just have to wait and see.

Oh, and I keep hearing that CGI costs considerably more than using real aircraft per second of on-screen time.

'Red Tails' is released here next Friday, I'll report back once I've seen it

I swore Peter Teichmann's P-40 was being used in this film, have I got the wrong film?
From the trailer I am not too impressed with the CGI either however if the film tells the true enough story of The Tuskegee airmen I will give it a watch.
Its a very important story and one that the young generation should get to hear about, So I hope the whole film is tastefully done.

Hi Chris. I have seen several clips of this film, and can't wait for it (Hopefully to appear over here.
In a strange sort of way it reminded me of the film "Wind talkers".They were a race who had to try and prove they were as good as the next man.
Jim.

Big screen CGI movies seem to be edited with very little reference to actual aircraft, the way they fly, speed they change direction, thus tainting the production with a games arcade feel which so dents the appeal of the film.

Pearl Harbor was pretty ropey anyway, but the cartoonish CGI pulled it down even more, and Flyboys was worse still. The 'angry bees ' sound track does not help much either.

There's no release date for the UK yet. I have a feeling they will wait and see how it does in the USA before deciding if it's worth releasing in cinemas here or not.

Peter

There was just a British news report on TV here (in NZ) a few minutes ago where Nina Nana interviewed two real Tuskagee airmen in the Imperial War Museum, London. One of then was a lt Col Jefferson but I didn't catch the other man's name.

Thats the aircraft 'cast list' as I recall it from May 2009. We were there for a week and there was a lot of flying and filming as well as taxiing and start-up sequences shot with the real fighter aircraft and fibre-glass replicas to fill out the numbers (B-17 arrived at the end of the week after the H11 P-40 departed). Of course if the film had been non CGI then I am sure we would have been there for six weeks, a la Memphis Belle. I recognise a few of the real aircraft scenes in the short trailer so its probably best to assume that real footage will be included in the finished film and it will not be 100% CGI, hopefully!

There was just a British news report on TV here (in NZ) a few minutes ago where Nina Nana interviewed two real Tuskagee airmen in the Imperial War Museum, London. One of then was a lt Col Jefferson but I didn't catch the other man's name.

Anyway that report said it opens next week in the UK.

Hi Dave

Thanks for that, very confusing. It certainly isn't out next week here but is in the USA. Did you see what company the British news report was by?

It was Nina Nannar who works for ITV News. It was stated in the intro (by the NZ newsreader) it is being released next week in the UK. And considering a British news report was promoting the film on ITV (ie UK local) with visiting veterans in the IWM Lambeth and talking about its impending release, I assumed that was accurate. Why else would they have bothered with the news report I wonder. They'd hardly be druming up UK audiences to go see it in the USA. And the very fact that our news picked it up tells me it will also be released here soon.

Propstrike mentioned CGI earlier. One of the best uses of CGI for aeroplanes I've yet seen is the final sequence of King Kong - those Helldivers attacking the big gorilla up on the Empire State Building. They look utterly brilliant. Yet there are times in the film itself when I can tell I'm looking at CGI, and others when I know it's CGI, but I'm convinced otherwise...

CGI has a place in aviation films, I learn a lot from watching Dog Fights.

You can read in many accounts of combat about those to close for comfort moments, near mid airs, aircraft badly damaged and large formations.

Without CGI to replace model work I doubt we could ever have a story well told visually. Those who fly know how much skill is involved in close proximity flying and then add the need to re create scenes from a story board with a director pushing the crews.